(D706 -D709)
At 0.26 hrs on August 31, 1997, the switchboard at Paris fire brigade
headquarters received a code-18 emergency call informing them of a serious
traffic accident in the Pont d'Alma tunnel in Paris's 8th arrondissement.

(D55)
A few minutes later, a police patrol on Cours Albert 1er consisting of
officers Lino GAGLIADORNE and Sebastian DORZEE, patrolling Cours Albert
1er, was told of the accident by passers by and made their way to the
scene.

The first Paris fire brigade crew arrived at the scene at 0.32 hrs.

Inside the tunnel, in the Concorde-Boulogne lane, police and rescue
services discovered a black Mercedes vehicle, type S280, registration
number 680 LTV75. The vehicle was badly damaged and had come to rest against
the outer wall of the tunnel, facing in the opposite direction to the
normal flow of traffic.

Four people were found inside the vehicle

- Lady Diana SPENCER, who had been sitting in the rear right passenger
seat, was still conscious and crouched on the floor of the vehicle with
her back to the road.

- At her side, stretched out on the rear seat, was Emad AL FAYED, who
had been sitting in the rear left passenger seat and appeared to be dead.
Nevertheless, fire officers were still trying - in vain - to resuscitate
him when he was pronounced dead by a doctor at 1.30hrs.

- In the front of the vehicle was the driver, Henri PAUL, the deputy
security manager at the Ritz hotel, who had been killed immediately and
was declared dead on removal from the wreckage.

- The front passenger was Trevor REES JONES, a body guard in the employment
of the Al FAYED family, who was still conscious and had suffered serious
multiple injuries to the face.

The two forward passengers' airbags had functioned normally.

Three people attended to the casualties: Dr Frédéric MAILLEZ,
a doctor with "SOS Médécin", and two volunteer fire officers,
Dominique DALBY and a second who is unnamed. All three had been driving
in the opposite direction, and on seeing the wrecked car, had stopped
to go spontaneously to the aid of its occupants.

In the tunnel, among the onlookers who had gathered around the vehicle,
several photographers were in action.

(D1602 - D1606)
The two police officers, GAGLIARDONE and DORZEE, had trouble keeping the
onlookers at bay in order to secure the scene and all the first witnesses
reported that the photographers, who had arrived at the scene almost immediately,
had pushed around the vehicle for the sole purpose of taking pictures
of the casualties.

Autopsy Conclusions

(D789 - D6858)
Autopsy examination concluded that Henri PAUL and Emad AL FAYED had both
suffered a rupture in the isthmus of the aorta and a fractured spine,
with, in the case of Henri PAUL, a medullar section in the dorsal region
and in the case of Emad AL FAYED a medullar section in the cervical region.

(D6833 - D6821)
Lady Diana Spencer received pre-hospital intensive care treatment, both
while she was trapped in the wreckage, from which she was finally released
at 1am, and during her transfer by ambulance, until her arrival at Pitie
Salpetriere hospital at 2.06hrs.

However, despite intensive surgical intervention, doctors had no option
but to declare her dead at 4am.

The report submitted by professors Dominique LECOMTE and Andre LIENHART
concluded that the cause of death was a wound to the upper left pulmonary
vein, together with a rupture to the pericardium. The experts believed
that it was exceptional for a patient who had suffered such serious intra-thoracic
lesions to reach hospital alive, resuscitation had been in accordance
with pre-hospitalisation regulations. According to the experts, the surgical
team was beyond reproach, and no other surgical, anaesthetic or resuscitation
strategy could have prevented deterioration in the condition of the patient.

(D6833)
The same experts pointed to the obviously traumatic origin of the injuries
to the three victims, stating that those suffered by the first two were
frequently observed in severe crash cases, head-on with extreme deceleration,
while those to Lady Diana SPENCER were more unusual and could probably
be explained by the victim's sideways position at the moment of impact.

The opening of the enquiry ....

The Paris Prosecution Department, which immediately sent a representative
to the scene, entrusted the enquiry of the case to the Paris police crime
squad. It is in these conditions that several press photographers: Christian
MARTINEZ, from the Angely Agency, Romuald RAT from the Gamma Agency, Stéphane
DARMON, his companion, Jacques LANGEVIN, from the Sygma Agency, Serge
ARNAL, from the Steels Press Agency, Laslo VERES, independent photographer
and Nikola ARSOV, from the Sipa Presse, were taken in for questioning
because of their attitude at the scene.

(D792)
By Public Prosecutor's charge dated 2nd September 1997, the Paris Prosecution
Department asked for an enquiry to be opened against the above named for
failing to give assistance to persons in danger and, against unnamed person,
for homicide and involuntary injury.

(D796 - D797 - D800 - D803 - D809 - D813)
However the examining magistrate named to lead these proceeding put under
investigation all the people who were brought before him for all the charges
listed in the initial charge.

(D1299 - D1302 - D1305)
As three photographers had left the scene before the police arrived, Fabrice
CHASSERY, David ODEKERKEN and Serge BENAMOU, all independent photographers,
reported to the crime squad offices on 4th September 1997 and, on 5th
September 1997, were put under investigation for the same charges by the
investigating magistrate.

The paths explored by the enquiry:

-The enquiry, which was finally entrusted to two examining magistrates
by the Presiding Judge of the Court of Paris, because of the extent and
complexity of the investigations to be carried out, was going to clarify
the context in which the photographers had followed the Mercedes in which
the couple were travelling and the affect of their presence on the behaviour
of the driver of the vehicle immediately before the accident.

-In addition, the preliminary investigation file had to identify and
examine the attitude adopted by these same photographers in the moments
which immediately preceded the accident.

-The enquiry was also going to look into the conditions in which Henri
PAUL had taken the wheel of the Mercedes carrying the couple on the evening
of 31st August 1997

(D816 - D828 -D1329 - D1332 - D1342 - D1519 - D1522 - D1524)
On this particular point, numerous experts' reports examined following
the autopsy on the body of Henri PAUL rapidly showed the presence of a
level of pure alcohol per litre of blood of between 1.73 and 1.75 grams,
which is far superior, in all cases, than the legal level.

Similarly, these analyses revealed as those carried out on samples of
the hair and bone marrow of the deceased, that he regularly consumed Prozac
and Tiapridal, both medicines which are not recommended for drivers, as
they provoke a change in the ability to be vigilant, particularly when
they are taken in combination with alcohol.

(D1514)
Finally, the amount of transferrin in the blood showed a level of 32 UI/l
[?], compatible, according to the experts with a chronic alcoholism over
the course of at least a week.

- Finally the investigations which were carried out both at the scene
and on the vehicle itself, allowed for the hypothesis of a possible collision
with another vehicle.

(D5433 to D5829 - D5969)
The Mercedes S280, in which the passengers were found, belonged to the
company Etoile Limousine and had been hired by this company to the Ritz
hotel, its only client. It was examined by the experts from the Institut
de Recherche Criminelle de la Gendarmerie Nationale (I.R.C.G.N.), then
by NIBODEAU-FRINDEL and AMOUROUX, the experts commissioned by the examining
magistrates, who all concluded that it had a low mileage and was in perfect
mechanical and working order.

(D1023)
Jean-François MUSA, manager of Etoile Limousine, confirmed that,
on 31st August, it did not have any trace of accidental damage or scratches.

(D1372-D1835)
Now the investigations showed traces of whitish colour both on the front
right wing and on the body of the right wing mirror, found further on
in the tunnel.

The additional research carried out by I.R.C.G.N. showed traces, both
on the front right wing and on the body of the wing mirror, which came
from the same vehicle, whose technical characteristics corresponded to
a vehicle make Fiat "Uno", white in colour, built in Italy in the period
1983 to the end of August 1987.

(D1506)
In addition, some red and white optical debris found on the right hand
lane, 7 or 8 metres from the entrance to the Alma tunnel were described
as also coming from a rear light of a vehicle make Fiat "Uno", built in
Italy in the period May 1983 to September 1989.

The arrival in Paris of the couple Diana SPENCER and Emad AL
FAYED:

The arrival of the couple in Paris and their movements during the day
of 30th August 1997 mobilised a growing number of press photographers.

Lady Diana SPENCER, Princess of Wales, and her friend, Emad AL FAYED,
had landed at Le Bourget airport in the morning of the 30th August 1997
from Sardinia, at the end of a Mediterranean cruise, where they had been
followed by a great number of the world's press.

The couple were accompanied by two English bodyguards, employed by the
private security of the AL FAYED family, Trevor REES JONES and Alexander
WINGFIELD.

Two vehicles were waiting for them, a Range Rover which was driven by
Henri PAUL, deputy security manager of the Ritz hotel, owned by the father
of Emad AL FAYED, Mohammed AL FAYED, and a Mercedes 600, driven by Philippe
DOURNEAU, Mohammed AL FAYED's official driver when he was in France.

The Princess had not advised the British Embassy of her presence in
France and had not requested any particular protection from the French
authorities.

The press was present from their arrival: at the airport were: Fabrice
CHASSERY, at the wheel of a charcoal grey Peugeot 205, registration no.
5816 WJ 92, David ODEKERKEN was driving a beige Mitsubishi "Pajero" 4/4,
registration no.520 LPZ75, Romuald RAT and his driver, Stéphane
DARMON, on a dark blue Honda motorcycle, registration no. 302 LXT75 and
Alain GUIZARD, from the Angely Agency, was in a grey-blue Peugeot 205,
registration no.3904 ZR 92, accompanied by three press motorcyclists from
the same agency.

After a detour to one of the residences of the AL FAYED family, the
Windsor villa, situated on the Bois de Boulogne, Lady Diana SPENCER and
Emad AL FAYED went to the Ritz hotel.

(D1043 - D2473 -D1052)
During the different journeys, the photographers ended up losing sight
of the vehicles and only Alexander WINGFIELD recalled the dangerous behaviour
of some of them on the road. Trevor REES JONES and Philippe DOURNEAU,
on the other hand, testified that the photographers had always remained
behind the Range Rover.

At about 18.00hrs the couple, still in the Mercedes driven by Philippe
DOURNEAU, returned to the AL FAYED family hotel, rue Arsène Houssaye,
very close to the Arc de Triomphe, while Jean-François MUSA replaced
Henri PAUL at the wheel of the Range Rover.

(D2020)
Numerous photographers had again started to follow them at that moment,
and, according to Trevor REES JONES, he had asked them not to take photos
during the journey, a request which they respected.

(D2173 - D2178 - D1043 - D2020 - D1633)
However there were still more of them as the couple's car turned into
rue Arsène Houssaye, and there was then a jostling, followed by an incident
between Romuald RAT and the security personnel, an incident which was
quickly resolved by the intervention of Trevor REES JONES and Alexander
WINGFIELD.

As well as the photographers who were already present since Le Bourget,
there were in front of the building in the rue Arsène Houssaye,
Serge BENAMOU and Lalso VERES, who were both riding their scooters, as
well as Christian MARTINEZ and Serge ARNAL , who had come in the latter's
car, a Fiat black "UNO", registration no. 444 JNB 75.

(D2161)
During this time Henri PAUL, who was not on duty that evening, had left
the Ritz hotel at about 19.00hrs, telling the security guard, François
TENDIL, that he could always be reached on his mobile telephone.

(D5150)
Claude ROULET, the assistant of Franck Klein, the manager of the Ritz
hotel, who was not in Paris at that time, had, at the request of Emad
AL FAYED, reserved a table for the couple in a restaurant in the capital,
where he had gone to wait for them.

He cancelled this reservation at about 21.00, as Emad AL FAYED informed
him that, because of the crowds of journalists they were dining at the
Ritz, in the hope of getting some more peace.

Despite these precautions, when the Mercedes and the Range Rover arrived
at Place Vendôme, the photographers had followed them from the rue Arsène
Houssaye, and in front of the hotel there was a big crowds of curious
onlookers and journalists.

As the couple left their vehicle belatedly there was a crush at the
moment when they entered the hotel.

(D1043 - D5073)
This situation annoyed Emad AL FAYED, as testified by Trevor REES JONES
and Alexander WINGFIELD, who added that, not being made aware of the change
of programme until the journey to the Ritz, they were unable to anticipate
the difficulties.

(D2473)
Trevor REES JONES even stated: "Dodi took an active part in security
arrangements, he was the boss and in addition we did not know the programme
in advance, only he knew the programme."

(D2136)
Henri PAUL was informed of the incident by François TENDIL, who
took the initiative to return to the hotel, where he reported at 22.07
hrs, as seen by the hotel surveillance camera.

(D2193)
Then he joined the two English body guards at the bar where he consumed
two glasses of "Ricard".

The change in the programme: the diversionary tactics decide
by Emad AL FAYED:

(D2136)
As soon as he arrived at the Ritz, Emad AL FAYED, for his part, called
Thierry ROCHER, the night manager of the hotel to inform him of the situation.

Learning from the latter that Henri PAUL had returned, he asked him
to tell him that they needed a third vehicle, placed in rue Cambon, at
the back of the building, to return to rue Arsène Houssaye, and that the
two vehicles used by the couple during the day would stay in Place Vendôme
to create a diversion.

(D1043 - D5073 - D2473)
Trevor REES JONES and Alexander WINGFIELD confirmed that the decision
to use a third vehicle had been taken by Emad AL FAYED and that it was
he who had asked Henri PAUL to drive it.

The two bodyguards explained that they had expressed their disagreement
with these arrangements, but only in as far as they were to separate.

None of them, however expressed any reservations on the capability of
Henri PAUL to drive. They stated that nothing in his behaviour lead them
to think that he was drunk and they claimed that they had not seen the
types of drinks that he had had.

(D2144 -D2156 - D2159 - D2169 -D2136)
In fact, of the four employees in charge of the bar that evening, only
Alain WILLAUMEZ noted that Henri PAUL was drunk; Thierry ROCHER, who went
to tell Henri PAUL the instructions from Emad AL FAYED found that his
behaviour was completely normal.

He stated that Henri PAUL had replied that "he was going to finish
his "Ricard" with the English".

The results of the analyses, notably of the amount of transferrin, showed
the existence of a certain amount chronic alcoholism and the testimony
of one of his closest friends, Dr Dominique MELO revealed that it was
not an isolated problem, as the latter had consulted him a year and a
half previously about the matter.

The enquiry was not able to establish formally is the employers of Henri
PAUL were in a position to know about this aspect of his personality:
apart from the testimony of Alain WILLAUMEZ, none of the other professional
colleagues of Henri PAUL had heard anything about this subject. He did
have the reputation of being someone who "enjoyed life".

He had been employed at the Ritz since 1985 and was well liked by the
management.

(D1011 - D1020 - D2213)
On a private level his best friends, his ex girlfriend, his neighbours,
all painted a portrait of a man who was both "shy" and at the same time
"enjoyed life". No-one seemed to have noticed the existence of a problem
linked to alcohol.

In fact, if the appointment of Henri PAUL as the driver poses a problem
about the awareness of his state on the evening in question and his intemperance,
it should also lead to an examination of the conditions in which it had
been decided to resort to a vehicle from the company Etoile Limousine,
whose fleet was made up of high powered cars, necessitating to drive them,
the possession of a special licence, which Mr Henri PAUL did not possess.

(D1023 - D4936)
On this point the versions of the Ritz management and Jean François
MUSA, the manager of Etoiles Limousine, diverge : Jean François
MUSA claimed that he had expressed reticence when he heard that Henri
PAUL would drive the car, notably because he did not have an ad hoc licence,
but no witness confirms this point.

Jean François MUSA, who however admitted still allowing the use
of the vehicle, despite knowing that Henri PAUL was to drive it, justified
this by reason of the fact that he could not refuse what was asked of
him.

Now, examining the nature of the commercial links which united the Ritz
- Jean-François MUSA used to drive for the Ritz - to the Etoile
Limousine company, one can see the total dependence of the Etoile Limousine
company on the Ritz, its only client, which put it in competition with
another company offering identical services - the MURDOCH company.

Finally, it is worth remembering that during the day Jean-François
MUSA had been used to drive the Range Rover for Emad AL FAYED and that
the same Jean-François MUSA, who did not belong officially to the
staff of the Ritz, had been used on different occasions in the same conditions,
as if he were still an employee of the hotel.

From a general point of view, even if Emad AL FAYED and the Princess
had not gone down to the Ritz, the management and the staff of the institution
as a whole were put at the entire disposal from their arrival in Paris
and Emad AL FAYED had, as a last resort, the power to decide all matters.

While the diversionary manoeuvre was being prepared, the photographers
were still waiting in front of the hotel, in the Place Vendôme,
and several more arrived: notably Alain GUIZARD, Jacques LANGEVIN, who
arrived in a grey Golf registration no. 3765PL94, and Nikola ARSOV, driving
a white BMW motorbike registration 448 BNE 91.

Towards midnight, Philippe DOURNEAU and Jean-Francois MUSA simulated
a fake departure, driving around the Place Vendôme in the Mercedes 600
and the Range Rover.

Several journalists noticed that Henri PAUL was behaving unusually towards
them that evening, coming to see them, and announcing the departure of
the couple as imminent. Several described him as "laughing, particularly
jovial".

Frederic LUCARD, the young valet in charge of driving the Mercedes S280
to the Rue Cambon, confirmed the "jovial" discussions between Henri PAUL
and the journalists and even added - although he alone described it -
that when Henri PAUL took the wheel of the Mercedes in the Rue Cambon,
he heard him say to the journalists present: "Don't try to follow us,
you'll never catch us".

Anticipating the possibility of the couple's exit by the rear of the
building, Serge BENAMOU, Jacques LANGEVIN, Fabrice CHASSERY and Alain
GUIZARD went to the Rue Cambon and watched both the arrival of the Mercedes
S280 and the departure of the couple.

They then warned Romuald RAT, Christian MARTINEZ, Serge ARNAL and David
ODEKERKEN , who had stayed in front of the hotel.

Jacques LANGEVIN, Fabrice CHASSERY and Serge BENAMOU took a few pictures
of the couple, then the Mercedes left at speed.

It was then 12.20am on the hotel's surveillance camera clock in the
Rue Cambon.

The drive from the Ritz to Alma:

Among those under investigation, several confirmed they had followed
the same path as the Mercedes.

(D1636 - D1720 - D1710 - D1700 - D5033)
Thus, Romuald RAT, Stéphane DARMON, Serge ARNAL and Christian MARTINEZ
claimed that after a red light in the Place de la Concorde, the Mercedes
accelerated to a very high speed along the river, and that they rapidly
lost sight of it.

They had then slowed down at the exit of the first tunnel, thinking
that the Mercedes might have turned off, but they continued along the
road, only seeing the Mercedes again, this time involved in the accident,
as they approached the Alma tunnel.

(D1731 - D5033)
Serge BENAMOU had also followed the river, but rapidly left behind, he
had taken the first tunnel exit and arrived at the Place de l'Alma.

(D1688 - D4745 - D5033)
Jacques LANGEVIN meanwhile explained that his car had been parked in the
Rue Cambon, and after a detour through the Place Vendôme, he had decided
to go to meet friends for dinner. It was by chance, and some time later,
that he followed the same road as the Mercedes.

(D1648 - D5033)
David ODEKERKEN found himself behind the Mercedes until the Concorde red
traffic light. He claimed he had then decided not to follow further. He
saw the Mercedes depart in a whirlwind, followed by Serge ARNAL's vehicle,
and he was then overtaken by Romuald RAT and Stéphane DARMON. He
explained that to get to his home he had also by chance followed the Mercedes'
route.

Consequently, none of the photographers admit that they "chased" the
car carrying the couple, nor that they had impeded his progress or taken
pictures en route. None of the negatives seized from the photographers
show pictures taken on the journey. Nor did any of them admit to having
been close enough to the Mercedes to have witnessed in the actual accident.

There were three photographers under investigation who claimed not even
to have tried to follow the Mercedes:

Laslo VERES stayed in front of the Ritz and only learned of the accident
later in a phone call from Serge BENAMOU. His story was confirmed by the
Ritz surveillance cameras, which established that at 12.26am he was still
in front of the hotel.

(D1675-D5033)
-Fabrice CHASSERY declared that, in agreement with David ODEKERKEN, he
had decided to not follow the car and that from the Place de la Concorde
he had taken the Champs Elysées, where a call from David ODEKERKEN
informed him of the accident.

-Finally Nicola ARSOV had stayed in front of the Ritz with some other
photographers, including Pierre HOUNSFIELD, and had finally followed the
Range Rover and the Mercedes 600 until the Champs Elysées, then
avenue Wilson, where he had left these two vehicles and turned into Cours
Albert 1er to arrive at the Place de l'Alma.

In fact the critical examination of the accounts of the persons questioned
does not allow them to be radically called into question . . .

(D5293 - D7087 - D5969)
- In fact, as regards first of all Romuald RAT and Stéphane DARMON,
the experts' reports comparing the speed of the different vehicles established
that over 1400 metres, or the distance between the Avenue Champs Elysées
and the Pont de l'Alma, their motorcycle was slower than the Mercedes.

- As for Serge BENAMOU, who was driving a scooter, the question did
not arise, and the same can be said for Serge ARNAL, whose Fiat "Uno"
could not be compared with the Mercedes.

(D4911)
The moment's hesitation mentioned by Romuald RAT, Stéphane DARMON,
Christian MARTINEZ and Serge ARNAL at the exit of the first tunnel seems
logical, in as far as the exit towards the Place de l'Alma allowed access
to the Avenue Marceau and to thus follow directly on to the Rue de Presbourg
and the Rue Arsène Houssaye. This was moreover the route, which Philippe
DOURNEAU was taking in his Mercedes 600.

(D136 - D1459 - D1087 - D2352 - D141)
In addition, if some witnesses noted the presence of motorcycles behind
the Mercedes, or even their annoying behaviour during the journey between
the Place de la Concorde and the Alma tunnel, they did not state either
the number or the type.

(D1418 - D1426 - D1532 - D1536 - D2377 - D2363 - D1422 - D1448 - D1529)
Finally the witnesses situated, at the moment of the accident, opposite
the entrance to the tunnel, definitely noticed a motorcycle, but whereas
according to some of them it was following the Mercedes closely, according
to others, it did not arrive until after the accident. Above all they
proved incapable of describing it with a minimum of details.

- The explanations of David ODEKERKEN and Fabrice CHASSERY were not
totally convincing as Romuald RAT, Stéphane DARMON, Serge ARNAL,
Christian MARTINEZ and Serge BENAMOU confirmed having seen them behind
the Mercedes at the red traffic light at la Concorde.

Furthermore it is difficult to understand why professionals reputed
to be "persistent" and who had already waited for hours would have given
up in this manner.

But, there again, the presence of the David ODEKERKEN quite distinctive
vehicle was, however, neither noticed by the witnesses to the journey
nor by the witnesses to the accident.

(D6135)
In addition, on the list of telephone calls made, a call by David ODEKERKEN
to Fabrice CHASSERY at 00.24:05, or at a time which corresponds to minutes
after the accident, is identified, which would tend to confirm that they
had separated, perhaps in order to better "cover" all the possible routes.

- If the statements made by Nikola ARSOV do not correspond to the route
described by Philippe DOURNEAU, as being the one that he would have followed,
one cannot deduce with certainty that he had set off in pursuit of the
Mercedes.

(D2612 -D2392)
On the one hand the testimony of Pierre HOUNSFIELD, another reporter present
in front of the Ritz, confirmed that Nikola ARSOV had left the Place Vendôme
too late to be found immediately behind the Mercedes and, on the other
hand, if a witness, Jean-Louis BONNIN, stated that he had been overtaken
on the right bank [of the Seine] by a motorcycle with a number plate "91",
like that of Nikola ARSOV, he described two people on the motorcycle,
when it has been established that Nikola ARSOV was driving alone.

(D1057 - D5003)
- As for Jacques LANGEVIN, his position was only called into question
by Alain GUIZARD, who, in his first statement, had explained that he had
seen Jacques LANGEVIN's Golf in the group of vehicles behind the Mercedes
at the traffic light on the Place de la Concorde, but, when confronted,
had not confirmed this statement.

- Finally, the only survivor of the accident, Trevor REES JONES, suffering
from amnesia, had no memory of the part of the journey between the Ritz
and the Alma tunnel, and was not able to supply precise information on
the progress of the journey.

(D2473 - D4346)
The only thing he could confirm was the presence behind them leaving the
Rue Cambon of a scooter and a small light coloured car as well as, at
the stop at the traffic lights on Place de la Concorde, the presence of
a motorcycle at their sides, before the Mercedes sped off quickly in first
position.

In conclusion, it is not possible to determine exactly which of the
people under examination who followed the Mercedes for the whole of the
journey right up to the place of the accident, as a doubt exists on this
point with regard to Fabrice CHASSERY and Nikola ARSOV.

As for those who had taken the same route as the Mercedes, their behaviour
on the road nor the exact speed is not known precisely.

And even if it is undeniable that they arrived in the tunnel a very
short time after the accident, one cannot estimate with any certainty
what distance they were away from the Mercedes at the moment where the
latter sped into the tunnel.

Finally, taking account of the technical findings of the I.R.C.G.N.
experts, one can state that none of the vehicles used by the people under
examination corresponds to the Fiat "Uno" which is likely to have been
in collision with the Mercedes.

The analysis of the causes and the liability with regard to
the crimes of homicide and voluntary [sic.] injury:

First of all, as far as the possible role played in the accident by
a Fiat "Uno", the existence of which was revealed by the traces found
on the Mercedes, the experts' reports have underlined that, in every hypothesis,
its role could only have been a passive one.

(D2359 - D2371)
The driver of this Fiat "Uno" has not been able to be identified, despite
extremely long and detailed investigations which have been lead by the
enquiry team, who only had, to direct their research the witness statements
of a couple of drivers, who, at approximately the time which could correspond
to the accident, told of the abnormal behaviour of the driver of a Fiat
"Uno" crossing the Place de l'Alma in the direction of Boulogne.

(D2097)
Interrogated about the circumstances of the collision between this unknown
Fiat "Uno" and the Mercedes S280, the I.R.C.G.N. experts indicated that
it was a collision 'three quarters behind', and that at the moment of
contact between the two vehicles the speed of the Mercedes was faster
than that of the Fiat "Uno".

(D5433 to D5829)
The experts NIBODEAU-FRINDEL and AMOUROUX, for their part, concluded that
the contact between the Mercedes and the Fiat "Uno" only consisted of
a simple scrape, which had not lead to a significant reduction in speed
by the Mercedes.

The speed at which the Mercedes was travelling was described as very
fast by all the witnesses, both during the journey along the banks [of
the Seine] and at the moment when it entered the tunnel.

Mr NIBODEAU-FRINDEL and Mr AMOUROUX estimated the speed of the Mercedes,
before the collision at a total of between a maximum of 155 km/hour and
a minimum of 118 km/hour and the speed, at the moment of the crash on
the thirteenth pillar of the Alma tunnel was between 95 and 109 km/hour
with a margin of error of more or less 10%.

They attributed the direct causes of the accident to this excessive
speed which, taking account of the particular profile of the road, had
rendered the vehicle difficult to control, all the more so because of
the presence of the Fiat "Uno" at the entrance of the tunnel and the fact
that the driver of the Mercedes had a very poor control of his vehicle.

They finally stated that Emad AL FAYED and Lady Diana SPENCER would
have survived if they had fastened their safety belts.

Consequently from all of the investigations lead and from the different
expert reports it transpires that the direct cause of the accident is
the presence, at the wheel of the Mercedes S280, of a driver who had consumed
a considerable amount of alcohol, combined with the fact that he had recently
taken medication, driving at a speed not only faster than the maximum
speed limit in built up areas, but excessive when taking account of the
layout of the places and the predictable obstacles, notably the presence
on his right of a vehicle moving at a slower pace.

Therefore the loss of control of the vehicle by the driver in the Alma
tunnel constitutes the main cause of the accident.

Now, any possibility of pursuing this case is extinguished by the very
fact of its previous demise by setting in motion of the public action.

Therefore, in these conditions it remains that the criminal liability
of those persons under examination for homicide and involuntary injuries
can only be considered in terms of indirect cause since the direct cause
of the accident has thus been established.

In other words, the question is knowing whether the fact that a certain
number of photographers had undertaken to follow the vehicle carrying
Diana SPENCER and Emad AL FAYED played a contributory role, and a clear
contributory role, by creating psychological conditions whereby the driver
felt constrained to drive at an excessive speed.

This supposes first of all, therefore, that the photographers had "pursued"
the vehicle.

Now it is observed that, for the duration of the day, if the growing
presence of the photographers did legitimately irritate the Princess and
her companion, it was not unexpected, given the extreme media coverage
of their relationship, nor, given the amount of means and personnel at
their disposal, an event which had left them completely helpless.

The presence of these photographers during the day, although undesirable,
had not manifested itself in dangerous practices, nor in recourse to ruses
or subterfuges, all the photos taken showing clearly scenes in public.

Taking account of these elements, it is not possible to support the
view that this general context constitutes a hounding of the couple by
the photographers.

Secondly, this supposes researching how many photographers had followed
the couple, their number being able to play an important role in the creation
of a psychological effect on the driver, and who from among the photographers
had been able to play this role.

In this regard, a rigorous assessment of the charges against each of
the people under examination lead to eliminating Laslo VERES from any
responsibility, as it has been established that he had not followed the
Mercedes and to not uphold that of Fabrice CHASSERY and Nikola ARSOV for
whom there remains some doubt on this point.

Finally, with regard to Romuald RAT, Stéphane DARMON, Serge ARNAL,
Christian MARTINEZ, Serge BENAMOU, David ODEKERKEN and Jacques LANGEVIN,
it is necessary to determine with certainty if, at the moment when the
driver lost control of the vehicle, they were within sight of the Mercedes.

The enquiry not having being able to establish this, one cannot therefore
state that their presence provoked such a stress in the driver that it
definitely explains the speed taken.

In fact, in the hypothesis of a slower speed, or 118 km/hour, it is
rather rash to allude to a "fleeing" behaviour.

The speed adopted by the driver can also clearly be attributed to the
presence of alcohol in his blood, the effect of which was increased by
the medicines, and thereby characterise the psychological effect of a
driver who was totally uninhibited at the wheel of a powerful car and
sure of having distanced the photographers.

Consequently, it was not shown that at the moment when the driver lost
control of his vehicle, he found himself having to drive at speed, rendering
the accident inevitable.

One can only state that there is no clear underlying link between the
speed of the vehicle and the presence of photographers following the vehicle.

Therefore the charges of homicide and involuntary injury will be judged
as no grounds for prosecution with respect to Romuald RAT, Christian MARTINEZ,
Stéphane DARMON, Jacques LANGEVIN, Serge ARNAL, Laslo VERES, Nikola
ARSOV, Fabrice CHASSERY, David ODEKERKEN and Serge BENAMOU.

-The establishment of an incidental civil claim for damages
by Trevor Rees Jones:

(D6927)
On 23rd September 1998, alongside the preliminary investigation of the
case opened on 2nd September 1997, Trevor REES JONES' counsel lodged a
claim for damages against X for having put in danger the life of another
person, by reason of the fact that, by putting at the Ritz' disposal a
powerful car without a driver who held a licence as required by the regulations,
the managers of the Etoile Limousine company had directly exposed Trevor
REES JONES to the risk of death, mutilation or permanent disability.

This claim was followed on 2nd November 1998 by the opening of an enquiry
and, by reason of the connection with the enquiry opened 2nd September
1997, a joinder order was made on 30th November 1998.

This claim could not go ahead, in as far as, on the one hand the crime
of having endangered the life of another person is only constituted in
the absence of harmful result, which is not the case of Trevor REES JONES,
as he presented with numerous traumatic lesions following the accident
of 31st August 1997 and the experts commissioned to evaluate the gravity
[of his injuries] and determine the resulting ITT, concluded on 2nd October
1997 that the initial ITT was still in course and would not be less than
six months (D1736).

On the other hand, in order to establish the crime, it is necessary
to show that the manifestly deliberate violation of a particular safety
or cautionary obligation imposed by law or regulations has directly exposed
another person to an immediate risk of death, mutilation or permanent
disability.

One cannot sustain in the matter of the non-respect of the provisions
of the decree of the 15th July 1955 and the decree of 18th April 1966,
which impose for the driving of high powered vehicles, the possession
of a special licence, has directly exposed the plaintiff to an immediate
risk of death, mutilation or permanent disability, it being a matter of
carrying out a relatively short journey in town, i.e. in a secure road
environment and on board a vehicle, certainly high powered, but technically
accessible to the holders of a Category B driving licence.

Consequently the claim will be judged as there being no grounds for
prosecution.

-After the accident: liability with regard to the crime of
failing to come to the aid of people in danger:

In order to come to a decision regarding each of the persons under examination
on the imputability of the facts with regard to not coming to the aid
of people in danger, first of all requires the establishment, with utmost
exactitude, of the time sequence of events after the accident occurred,
in order to define the exact period during which they can be legitimately
charged with voluntary abstention.

Taking account of the multiplicity of sources of information, which
cannot be synchronised with certainty, the sequence of the events has
been established based on several factors:

The first source comes from the recording of the security cameras at
the Ritz hotel, where the internal clock indicated the departure of the
Mercedes from the Rue Cambon at 00.20.

Then come the telephone switchboards of the emergency services:

- at the number "18", the number of the main Fire Station, the first
call was received at 00.26, the call from Dr. MAILLEZ who arrived on the
scene at almost the same period of time;
- at the number "17", emergency number for the police, the first call
was recorded at 00.29:59.

(D6212)
Thirdly, numerous pieces of information were obtained from the listings,
supplied by the mobile telephone operators Itinéris and SFR, of
all the calls made from a portable telephone on 30th and 31st August 1997,
between midnight and one o'clock in the morning, in the Concorde/Vendôme/Alma
areas.

(D6135 - D6106)
Thus one finds a first call to "18" at 00.23:43, from Paul CARRIL's mobile,
who declared having called as soon as he heard the crash.

(D6132 - D6134 - D159 - D6131 - D6128 - D6127 - D6126 - D6125)
This first call was followed by a number of others both to "18" and to
"112", the emergency number which is common to Itinéris and SFR.

(D6139)
In addition the listing mentions, at 00.23, a call from Serge ARNAL's
mobile to "12".

(D50)
Finally the emergency services themselves constitute the last source of
information, as the police commander having received the call from the
GAGLIARDONE/DORZEE patrol indicated that it was then 00.30, while the
report established by the fireman mentioned that the first crew arrived
at 00.32.

In spite of an inevitable margin of error, it is accepted therefore
that a short time passed between the departure from the Rue Cambon and
the occurrence of the accident, as well as the existence, in very quick
succession of a large number of calls to the emergency services then the
rapid arrival of these services.

Equally one notes that the call from Dr MAILLEZ to the firemen happened
a very short time after the accident, which is to be emphasized, as from
the moment when the doctor was at the location and took charge of things,
the legal obligation to personally act is no longer imposed with the same
force for any non specialists present at the scene.

(D1610)
In fact it transpires from the time sequence of the different calls and
from the testimony of Mark BUTT, who accompanied Dr MAILLEZ, that when
Dr MAILLEZ left his vehicle, which was stopped on the opposite carriageway,
to assists the injured, the first policemen had not yet arrived.

It is consequently in the few minutes preceding Dr MAILLEZ's arrival
that the attitude of the different people under examination can be usefully
considered by piecing together their statements, the analysis of the photos
which they took and the statements of the witnesses most directly involved.

In fact, the enquiry was able to piece together the existence of a small
group of witnesses present at the scene before the arrival of Dr MAILLEZ,
knowing that other onlookers had equally appeared very quickly on the
scene, as seen on the photographs, but without being able to be identified.

(D2396 - D6086)
- Belkacem BOUZID and Abdelatif REDJIL, walking in the Place de la Reine
Astrid, explained that they rushed into the tunnel as soon as they heard
the crash.

Belkacem BOUZID stated that he then saw four photographers in action,
among whom he identified Romuald RAT, while Abdelatif REDJIL claimed that
they had been the first on the scene, even before a first photographer,
who got off a motorcycle and whom he identified as being Romual[d] RAT.

It is worth noting that Adelatif REDJIL could only be heard rather belatedly.

However they are both identifiable on different photos, Belkacem BOUZID,
dressed in a mustard coloured jacket and Abdelatif REDJIL in blue jeans
and a green jacket (D191, D368, D457).

- Two young people had left a car travelling in the opposite direction
to go to the vehicle involved in the accident: Damien DALBY, a voluntary
fireman, and his brother Sébastien PENNEQUIN.

(D121 - D1266 - D4928 - D123 - D1259 - D4940)
They explained that at least four photographers were already there, and
they identified Romuald RAT, whom they described as kneeling in front
of the open back right door, the scene which was found on a photograph
by Christian MARTINEZ (DD473).

They heard him shout in the direction of another photographer who was
moving away: "she is alive", then saw him push back the other photographers.

After having gone round the car to estimate the state of the injured,
Damien DALBY had then seen Dr MAILLEZ, who was taking charge of Lady Diana
SPENCER and he himself, together with another unidentified fireman, therefore
dealt with Trevor REES JONES (cf. D186, D188, D367, D471, D472 - Damien
DALBY being dressed in blue jeans and a blue T shirt and the other volunteer
fireman in blue jeans and a blue-grey T shirt).

Sébastien PENNEQUIN stated that he had helped a man to describe
the state of the injured, as this man had the firemen on line, thanks
to a mobile phone.

(D2367)
This man was James HUTH, who was in a flat in Cours Albert 1er and who
explained that he went into the tunnel as soon as he heard the crash.

On photo D470, Sébastien PENNEQUIN appears in a black jacket
and black jeans.

(D129 - D132 - D1418)
- Finally Clifford GOOROOVADOO, a limousine driver, who was waiting for
his clients at the Place de l'Alma when he heard the crash caused by the
accident, stated that at the time he arrived near the vehicle involved
in the accident four or five people, of whom three were taking photographs,
were near the Mercedes.

He recognised Romuald RAT, whom he described as particularly agitated:
"Romuald RAT was everywhere around the car (. . .), he was moving around
in all directions" (D5018).

He also said he had seen him argue with Christian MARTINEZ.

He spoke in English to the injured to reassure them and, indeed, he
also appears on several photographs (D188, D366, D368, D470, D471).

In addition, during the course of the enquiry, Stéphane DARMON,
Serge ARNAL, Christian MARTINEZ, Romuald RAT and Serge BENAMOU admitted
that they arrived at the scene of the accident before the arrival of Dr
MAILLEZ.

(D238 - D243 - D1720 - D5033)
Stéphane DARMON stated that he was the first to enter the tunnel
where he had parked his motorcycle about ten metres in front of the Mercedes,
Romuald RAT had got off the machine and had gone towards the car when
Serge BENAMOU and Serge ARNAL arrived.

Serge ARNAL informed him that he had called the emergency services.

Stéphane DARMON had moved his motorcycle, then he remained apart
[from the others], quite distressed, according to his statement.

(D336 - D348 - D340 - D350 - D1636 - D5033)
-Romuald RAT admitted that, as soon as he got off his motorcycle, he had
run towards the Mercedes and taken three photographs. Then he had opened
the back right door, taken the princess' pulse and had said to her, as
well as to Trevor REES JONES, that "the doctor was on his way". He stated
that he had not started to take pictures again until after the arrival
of the police (D347). He added that at the moment when he saw the injured
and realised the severity of their state, he had heard someone shout:
"I have called the emergency services".

On a total of 19 photos taken by Romuald RAT in the tunnel there are
certainly three photographs which depict just the Mercedes, it must be
added that a non-identified individual is in the shot in two of the photographs
(D371, D370) and a man who could be Mr BENAMOU on the third (D369).

Finally, on a fourth photo, which did not show either Dr MAILLEZ or
the policemen, but already a number of onlookers (D363).

(D4830 to D4867)
According to the expert DEWOLF, Romuald RAT was the second to take photographs
of the Mercedes alone and he never put his camera less than 5 metres from
the subjects.

(D168 - D172 -D179 - D1710 - D5033)
- Serge ARNAL stated that he had parked his vehicle in the direction of
the exit of the tunnel then had immediately called the emergency services,
dialling "112" on his mobile phone. He had a contact on line and, despite
a very bad reception, had provided the first pieces of information.

He explained that he had then gone down into the tunnel, where Romuald
RAT, Christian MARTINEZ, David ODEKERKEN and Serge BENAMOU were already,
and he had taken photos of the Mercedes.

He took 16 photographs in the tunnel, of which 8 featured the Mercedes
completely alone (D219 to D226).

According to the expert the photo D226 was certainly, of all the photos
seized, the first to be taken immediately after the accident, as the smoke
coming from the car can be made out, the lights were on and the driver's
air bag was still inflated. The seven photographs after that had been
taken by going around the vehicle, from the back to the front.

At the time of taking the following photos, Serge ARNAL had never approached
the injured by less than 1.5 metres.

(D420 - D428 - D435 - D438 - D1700 - D5033 - D5013)
Christian MARTINEZ stated that he had left the vehicle of Serge ARNAL
with his camera, having seen Romuald RAT at the place and heard someone
say "I can't get 12". He thought it was Serge ARNAL.

He had taken some photographs before going, with Serge ARNAL, to move
the vehicle of Serge ARNAL, then came back and took more photos.

He was the one who had taken the most, 31 in total, and the expert identified
him as the one who had come the closest [to the victims], less than 1.50
metres from Lady Diana SPENCER, notably at the moment when Dr MAILLEZ
was attending to her.

On four of these photos Dr MAILLEZ did not appear. (D455, D470, D472,
D473).

(D1177 - D1188 - D1206 - D1731 - D5033)
Serge BENAMOU stated that, when he entered the tunnel, in the opposite
direction to the traffic, as he was coming from the Place de l'Alma, and
that Romuald RAT, Christian MARTINEZ and Serge ARNAL were already near
the Mercedes, Serge Arnal told him that he had called the emergency services.

(D1207 to D1216)
Both Dr MAILLEZ and the firemen appear on all the photos belonging to
him, which were seized belatedly, as he was not questioned that evening.

(D1134 - D1134 - D1166 - D1648 - D5033)
For his part, David ODEKERKEN stated that he had not parked in the tunnel,
when he passed by car, he had seen the first four photographers and, going
towards the exit of the tunnel, had passed Stéphane DARMON. Then
he called Fabrice CHASSERY and explained that he had not called the emergency
services at that moment as he had heard people say that they had already
been called.

(D5033)
- Finally Jacques LANGEVIN, Fabrice CHASSERY, Nikola ARSOV and Laslo VERES
stated they arrived on the scene much later than the arrival of the emergency
services.

(D902 - D413 - D862 - D489 to D499)
It is noted that, policemen and firemen appear on all the photos taken
by Fabrice CHASSERY, Jacques LANGEVIN and David ODEKERKEN.

As for Nikola ARSOV, he said that he took some photographs, when the
emergency services were present, but his flash did not work.

In addition, no witness mentioned their presence before the arrival
of the emergency services.

Consequently, since there are no facts which establish the presence
of David ODEKERKEN, Jacques LANGEVIN, Fabrice CHASSERY, Nikola ARSOV and
Laslo VERES at the scene during the period of time preceding the arrival
of the police and the emergency services, and a fortiori that of Dr MAILLEZ,
one cannot claim that they failed to offer assistance at the scene.

One must wonder then about the credit that can be accorded to the statements
by Serge ARNAL concerning the telephone call to the emergency services,
in as far as he explained that he had dialled "112" when, on the listings
of calls passed on from the mobile telephones, the call that he made at
0.23 had been to "12", the number for telephone information.

(D230 - D6126 - D7218)
During his detention by the crime squad, the investigating officers had
ascertained the last 10 numbers dialled in his mobile telephone memory.
they found the "112" just before a call to his Chief Editor, Franck KLEIN,
this last communication being found, in the same order, on the listing
of mobile calls.

Consequently, the inconsistency existing between the reading of his
calls in his mobile and that of the general listing cannot constitute
an offence. [there being none]

Serge ARNAL, having acted to call the emergency services, cannot be
held in custody.

Then with regard to Stéphane DARMON, Christian MARTINEZ, Serge
BENAMOU and Romuald RAT, one must note that, if the law requires you to
offer to people in danger immediate and personnel assistance, or to call
for assistance, that which each of them was able to do, as they all had
a mobile telephone, it remains that the offence cannot be said to have
occurred in the absence of intent.

This can be deduced from the establishment of the facts, consequently
it is not proved that Stéphane DARMON, Serge BENAMOU and Christian
MARTINEZ, who were informed by Serge ARNAL that he had made a call to
the emergency services, had, by refraining from making a call themselves,
the intention of not proffering assistance to the passengers of the vehicle
involved in the accident.

Finally, with regard to Romuald RAT, the few seconds that he took to
take three photos, before approaching the vehicle involved in the accident,
do not appear in themselves likely to represent criminal intent.

On the one hand, he also maintained that he had heard someone shout
that the emergency services had been informed, an assertion which is not
improbable, given the telephone call by Serge ARNAL. On the other hand,
it emerges from the different testimonies and the photos seized that he
had stopped taking photos as soon as he had reached the vehicle and was
able to ascertain the state of the injured, and did not resume until after
the arrival of Dr MAILLEZ.

The conduct which he adopted in this period of time, crouching down
in front of the back passenger door, calling another photographer to tell
him that the Princess was alive, then arguing with the other photographers,
was liable to several interpretations, favourable or not according to
whether you considered that, in the panic of the moment, he had tried
to intervene, albeit clumsily, or whether he was acting as a professional
cynic, calling his colleagues for a "scoop", then pushing them away to
organise his own room for manoeuvre.

In these conditions, it does not appear that the constituent elements
of the crime of not assisting a person in danger were identified, the
charges weighing on the various aspects of the case under examination
being insufficient to justify their referral to a tribunal entertaining
jurisdiction.

The critical view which could be brought on the manner in which the
various people under examination have, during the course of the night
in question, exerted their professional activity can only be recorded
within the circumstances of the moral appreciation or the code of ethics
which govern the profession of journalist or phot-journalist.

CLAIMS OF NO GROUNDS FOR PROSECUTION:

Whereas within the terms of the enquiry, there are insufficient charges
against the following: ARNAL Serge, ARSOV Nikola, DARMON Stéphane,
LANGEVIN Jacques, MARTINEZ Christian, RAT Romuald, VERES Laslo, ODEKERKEN
David CHASSERY Fabrice and BENAMOU Serge of having committed the crimes
of involuntary manslaughter, involuntary injury, having incurred an ITT
of more than 3 months and of failing to assist people in danger, of which
they are charged, neither against all other charges of homicide or involuntary
injury having incurred an ITT of more than 3 months.

Whereas there are also insufficient charges against any of having committed
the crime of endangering the life of another person:

In accordance with articles 175, 176 and 177 of the Code of Penal Procedure;

The examining magistrates find that there is no case to answer in the
case of the state versus the above named of the charges of involuntary
homicide, involuntary injury incurring an ITT of more than 3 months and
of failing to assist a person in danger and against any of the charges
of involuntary homicide and injury which have incurred an ITT of more
than 3 months and of endangering the life of another person.

Signed at the Public Prosecutor's Office, on . . . . . .
. . . .
Head of the Prosecution Dept. at Courts of the First Instance